Mayor John Cook next week will ask the city to pay for, or help him recover, more than half a million dollars in legal fees he incurred while successfully fighting a recall effort.

Cook contends that he never should have been put in a position to fight multiple court battles and the city gave him bad legal advice. That entitles him to reimbursement and exemption from penalties, Cook said.

The item will be on Tuesday's City Council agenda.

Cook said he would support the city suing the recall petitioners on his behalf to recover his legal expenses. It's not clear at this point whether the city legal staff or council will support Cook.

Pastor Tom Brown, Word of Life Church and others attempted to recall Cook and city Reps. Susie Byrd and Steve Ortega because all three officials voted to restore health benefits for gay and unmarried partners of city employees after voters passed a ballot initiative in November 2010 repealing them.

Cook fought the matter and the Eighth Court of Appeals unanimously ruled the recall group violated law by circulating petitions in churches. The Texas Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal.

The process, which lasted more than two years, left Cook with $579,939 in legal bills. Cook said he owes $551,044, which is far more than he can afford.

"I fought what should have been the city's fight," Cook said.

Advertisement

Much of Cook's argument centers on the same line of reasoning the city attorneys used to fight one of the recent ballpark petitions.

The city's legal team said the City Charter doesn't allow for ballot measures to overturn ordinances passed by the City Council.

In 2009, the City Council passed an ordinance extending benefits to domestic partners of unmarried city employees.

Brown several times said he hoped to repeal the ordinance when he successfully got a petition on the ballot in November 2010 that voters approved.

"That ballot should have never gotten to the voters, it was illegal," Cook said. "It's clear in the language that the groups used in that ballot that they were trying to overturn something we passed back in August 2009. As a result, I should have never been put in the position in 2011 to cast the tie-breaking vote that restored benefits that were taken away."

Mark Walker, Cook's attorney, explains there's a key difference between initiative and referendum. Initiative is an original piece of legislation or something new, he said. Referendum, on the other hand, is to overturn existing legislation, he added.

Under the City Charter a referendum can only be used to rule on collective-bargaining agreements between the city and its employees.

Reporter Evan Mohl

The city's legal team in the ballpark litigation used Walker's and Cook's argument. They wrote the stadium petitions were "citizens' challenges [that] attempt to repeal or restrict validly enacted resolutions and ordinances rather than to propose new legislation. Such attempt is in the nature of a referendum -- not an initiative -- a right explicitly limited by the City Charter to collective bargaining agreements."

The judge backed City Council on the ballpark, but did not rule on the initiative-versus-referendum debate.

In an interview last February, city attorney Sylvia Borunda Firth said petitions to reverse votes by the council can slow down city business.

She said the purpose of a representative democracy is that citizens express their viewpoints by choosing elected officials who make legislation.

"Really, these petitions should be few and far between; they shouldn't be so frequent," she said. "It makes it difficult if every time we have legislation that someone doesn't like, we have to go through all these petitions and legal actions. That's what (City Council) elections are for."

The debate is whether the wording in Brown's petition qualifies as something new or a reversal.

The petition submitted by Brown said the city should adopt an ordinance that stops benefits to unmarried partners.

Brown several times used the word referendum in interviews with the El Paso Times. He also said his sole purpose was to overturn the original ordinance the council adopted in 2009.

"I really admire what the mayor did, it was the righteous thing to do," Byrd said. "But I'm not sure if we can legally pay because Tom Brown's ordinance was something new. I think the thing to do is find ways for the community to step up and help with his legal bills, I'm just not sure the city or taxpayers should do it."

On top of the referendum-initiative argument, Cook contends that he should have been protected under legislative immunity, which shields elected officials from liability.

A Texas Supreme Court opinion states, "When officials are threatened with personal liability for acts taken pursuant to their official duties, they may well be induced to act with an excess of caution or otherwise to skew their decisions É"

"The point is that you should act for the people, not the threat of lawsuits, " Walker said.

Cook also makes financial arguments in his memorandum to the council. He says the city had budgeted $800,000 for an election and he saved the taxpayers money.

Cook said the fight should have been cheap and brief, but an error by County Court 3 Judge Javier Alvarez and frivolous briefs and actions by lawyers Stuart Leeds and Theresa Caballero, who represented Brown, cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.

"Though expensive, the recall litigation saved El Paso taxpayers significant money, and upheld the rule of law in this community," Cook said.

Cook, though, may have an uphill battle when finding support among council.

"At this point, I'm not sure if I can support having the taxpayers pay for it," Ortega said. "But, I'm willing to listen."

Evan Mohl may be reached at emohl@elpasotimes.com; 546-6381. Follow him on Twitter @EvanMohl